Memory Alpha:Ten Forward/Archive 2005
A way to let people know where the important, incomplete pages are It seems that we still have some very important pages which are very incomplete. Bajor, for example. How can we inform other archvists where and what these pages are so that we can complete our database? (I have been working on some of these pages such as the Q Continuum, and completing them, but in order for everything to be compelted, we will need a system to tell people which pages are incomplete. July 1, 2005 User:Tobyk777 :A few pages like this exist, you know: -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:59, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC) Article records Are the articles that hit a certain number of viewing recorded somewhere? I just noticed that the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article has been viewed more than twenty thousand times. Was the 10,000th article recorded? Excelsior 10:53, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) :Individual page hits can be found here: . The 10,000th article wasn't recorded automatically, but a user posted it here a while ago. Apparently, this topic has been (re)moved. -- Cid Highwind 11:28, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) :: I was thinking more along the lines of a special page (a hall of fame if you will) that would show the articles that hit a certain number of hits. The DS9 page hitting 20,000 is excellent is it not? It should be recorded for posterity. Tough Little Ship 23:26, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::: The 10,000th article topic was apparently deleted by an anonymous user without being archived, but I've recovered it and placed it in the archive. For the record, T'Pring was the 10,000th article. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 01:26, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC) Contradictory info There are many bits of info in star Trek which lack consistency. For example: 1. In Voyager it says that the Breen use biological based ships like Spiecies 8472, but in DS9 it shows metal ships flying through space. 2. Damar and Wayoun aruge over the climate of the Breen Homeworld, but in a previous episode Dukat states that there is a Cardasssian embassy on Breen These are just 2 examples. What should writers do about these Contradictions while wrtiting artciles? :For #1 i would ask you: is it entirely impossible that the breen have used two different types of ships in their history? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:39, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::If the information is indeed contradictory, both facts should be noted, accompanied by a small note stating the contradiction. No speculation. -- Cid Highwind 11:54, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC) Dutch MA reaches 1,000 articles Oh joy is us! The Dutch Memory Alpha has reached 1,000 articles. Things have been slow on the Dutch wiki since we started, but three more or less continuous contributors with admin rights are keeping the RC filled. A change may be just around the corner. The 1,000th article was Portas V. -- Redge | ''Overleg'' 12:22, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC) :You know I could slap myself that I didn't start nl:2293 three articles earlier ;) Congrats, Dutch MA is finally no longer asleep -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 12:49, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC) Template formatting Just a small note: Any formatting regularly applied to templates should, in my opinion, be added to the template itself. For example, don't simply write : . If you want to have that message indented (which looks nice), add it to the message template instead. This makes it easier to change the template later, should there be any need to do so... -- Cid Highwind 12:36, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) : Oy, there are so many articles already where its already been manually indented its probably more advantageous to configure one of our bots to handle a change like that. — THOR 13:04, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::Yes a bot can handle that. It is actually a very important hint, because when we changed our templates to something more prominent (see de:Bild:Enterprise_im_dock_tmp.jpg for example) all the templates were broken, because we did import that style unfortunately I suggest to change it, it is actually a nice job for the bot, though one which should be done when America is asleep... -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 15:42, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) OK, then - can you get Morn to do this? Preferably, move any to its own line while removing any leading ":" characters? Or do we need another hack for that? ;) -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC) Policy Reminder - Summary field I think it is necessary to remind ourselves of the policies from time to time. Policy of the day: Always fill summary field Whenever I have a look at the "Recent changes", only about 10-20% of the edits contain an edit summary. Please, try to use that feature more often and, if possible, try to make the summary meaningful by really describing what exactly you changed on the page. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 09:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Also, I would discourage archivists from marking major changes to an article as "minor" -- there are a few who have never made a non-minor article edit, but also never even tried to use the summary field. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) Please, try to use that summary field... It's useful! -- Cid Highwind 13:06, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) Everyone who is too lazy to use the summary field should have a look on my user page ;-) --Memory 19:21, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) Images to be used on episode articles (Copied from Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles. -- Cid Highwind) :I didn't really want to discuss the issue of images here, but can think of no better place, as it's quite relevant to some of the comments above. I think we need to decide what kind of images are preferable for episode articles, and what images supplement write-ups. Images of characters, technology, situations? What do you/other users prefer? Please reply to this, as it's probably quite important for future nominations of episode pages and MA as a whole. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 12:51, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::I for one prefer that the first order of business when getting pictures from the episode is to get portrait quality shots of all characters, props, and most important sets, graphics, models or effects. This should be a first priority. The rule of thumb (basically, our self imposed limit according to policy) is that each article on Memory Alpha should probably have no more than three pictures attached to it (and be of sufficient length and importance to list the pictures), however, episode articles can have many more because each episode links to dozens of references, each of which (under the rule of thumb on pictures) could have one or two pictures used by it, taken from the episode itself. ::I try to interpret this as "each episode summary should have no more than two or three pictures on that episode's article that cannot be used by any other article." ::This includes a title card image, which is specific to the episode and probably couldn't be used by many other pages, if at all. While it may seem a little limiting to only use 2 or so "reaction shots" (shots specific to the episode where you can see action from the episode progressing), remember that if you choose reaction shots well, you can make them useful to three or so other articles. (If you find a picture of O'Brien shouting with his fist in the air, it might not be useful to any page but the page for "Episode X", as an archivist working for pictures on page Miles O'Brien would prefer it be more "portrait-like" and less "action-like" -- But if you find a picture of Miles in uniform, shouting, holding a(n unobscured) phaser rifle -- then you may find the picture used supplementarily on phaser rifle, Starfleet uniform or Dominion War. ::You get the ideas guys -- find pics with context, and try to follow links to articles about ships or technology and find if there's an action shot that would benefit your episode summary, or if an action shot from your episode summary could benefit a technology or character page. Conversely, anyone who uses an episode screenshot to illustrate tech, ships, sets or costumes could follow back to the episode it came from in order to benefit an episode summary someone else is contributing to. (Keeping in mind extra character shots on episode pages have been discouraged by discussion, unless they are placed to specifically note the introduction or landmark of the character in the background info/cast section). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:11, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::On episode pages, I would prefer that all images on the page serve some sort of purpose for illustration that cannot be otherwise given in the text. For example, the "Force of Nature" article does this with the diagrams of the Hekaras Corridor and the damage to subspace. However, shots of otherwise unremarkable or unimportant action, like the group at the conference table or the viewscreen shots, don't seem to add anything to the article and seem to be simply ornamental. Nothing uniquely special or important is happening. The only place I think these sorts of images are appropriate are the "title card" images in the info table Captainmike mentions; I think that space can be used for an image that would otherwise serve no purpose in the article (and maybe not in any other articles) but capture an important idea, theme, or event in the episode (as I previously noted, the image of Geordi with the Enterprise warp core would be perfect for "Force of Nature"). Also, I don't think we should feel pressured to include all screenshots from a particular episode on the page unless, again, there is a specific need to do so; otherwise it clutters the page and slows the download for those on dialup. Star Trek: Generations is beginning to suffer from this problem. I also think efforts should be made to consolidate images whenever possible or appropriate. On "Force of Nature," there are images of Rabal and Serova together and apart, plus other portraits of them at their individual articles. Why not use the image of the two together on all three pages and point out the individuals in captions? Basically, discretion should be used... it's okay to upload images for one certain purpose, but only if there's a definite need for them. ::: And on a final somewhat related, somewhat unrelated note, I'd like to point out that as of late it seems as if egos are coming to blow around here and short fuses and sarcasm have become extremely common... remember, we're all working for the same goal and there's no need to become upset! Please try to respect the contributions and opinions of others and don't be afraid to use the talk page whenever there's an edit conflict. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 02:33, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::: On the subject of images, I personally think that too many people are taking them from Trekpulse, and that screencaps should be used more than they currently are. This would mean that copyright issues could be completely avoided and that the pictures on this site would be unique. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 13:39, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::::: Aren't we all using the same material for our purposes? I don't mean to be difficult, it's just that technically none of us has any usage rights other than fair use. Incidentally, my program gets 576x432px resolution whereas I just visited their site and a screencap from there is 692x530px, so I can understand the tendency to borrow. :) -Schrei 09:14, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::::: Defiant, I don't see any real problem with using images from TrekPulse or from the old STINSV archives because those images are all screencaps of ST episodes -- the site "TrekPulse" doesn't really have any "rights" to them whatsoever -- how could they? the image is still owned by Paramount whether TrekPulse screencapped it or I screencapped it. ITs still nice to owe them a link as attribution for their work getting it, but TrekPulse did the same thing we do: "steal" the images off the DVDs. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:36, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC) Naming I feel that in episode descriptions featuring breakdowns into Acts, the sequence before the opening credits should be referred to as the " Cold Opening" as opposed to the "teaser". What is the general opinion on this( If any)? (User:Gul Reid; sig added) : I don't have any opinion on it per sé, although I am curious as to the meaning of "Cold Opening", it just strikes me as interesting. — THOR 20:12, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC) : I've heard it on DVD commentaries. I suppose it means the opening is "cold", as without the credits the viewer does not nescerraily know what the progamme is. Gul Reid 21:08, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::Teaser is the correct scriptwriting terminology for the brief intro before the opening credits. See http://www.writersmarket.com/encyc/T.asp#1174 or, for use in a script http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/163.txt. Cold open refers to the technique, rather than the actual section of teleplay (see ). The teaser of "Cause and Effect" is an excellent demonstration of said technique - the viewer is dropped right into the middle of the action with no knowledge of how it began. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 21:13, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::I think that the teaser for "Cause and Effect" is one of the best examples of a teaser - it was nothing short of shocking, IMHO. The teasers for "Contagion", "A Matter of Perspective", "First Contact", "Time's Arrow, Part I", "Face of the Enemy" and "Scorpion, Part I" are excellent examples of teaser techniques.--Scimitar 17:58, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC) : Well, I guess all the above settles it. Thanks for your input. Gul Reid 21:22, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC) :Although both are correct terminology they maby should simply be left away. (the naming itself not the text) So you only need the Act parts or similar named chapters. -- Q 16:54, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC) Scripts I've noticed a lot of contributers seem to have access to shooting scripts. Is there a website archive of these or something? I would enjoy reading such scripts. Gul Reid 22:04, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC) : Here is were I got them from. -- Q 16:43, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC) : TOS transcripts can be found here. Jan Pedersen 08:10, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC) Spellings? I've noticed that many of the contributions I've made to MA are always "corrected" when I put words like "recognise" or "italicise" to the US spelling (z''' instead of '''s). I know that MA is North American-based but is there a spelling convention as well?--Scimitar 15:54, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC) : It's a US based TV show, with writers writing the scripts in American-English and (I guess) M/A keeps the articles written in the same format of English for consistantancy. The only mention of this I could find was something I brought up several months ago here, with essentially the same response by one of our co-founders. --Alan del Beccio 23:18, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC) New Zealand Hey there, I was woundering if anyone out there knows when/if ST:ENT is being released in NZ on DVD. The guardian of Forever moved to Talk:Guardian of Forever Talk:Main Page - Please contribute I want to redesign the Main Page in the near future. If you have any comments to make about the existing or possible new content, please visit Talk:Main Page. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 14:30, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC) :I've added a subsection to Talk:Main Page that was here is Ten-Forward -- but archived before anyone could comment further. It deals with sorting technology topics differently and making the article technology available from the main page -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:18, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) "Title card" images The use and usefulness of "title card" images was brought up on Image talk:Enterprise and rogue comet.jpg. Do we need an image for each episode title? Please discuss here. -- Cid Highwind 10:48, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC) There is no need. It would take up too much space and most images would be identical, just with different titles.Gul Reid 15:39, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) *I believe every episode should have atleast 1 Pic in the data table that reflects the episode in general, but the title carfd shots are usually worthless.--Kahless 18:48, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) Star Trek Books I am new and I was wondering if star trek books that are done with paramounts ok are considered as usable in writing articles.If not,why? :You already seem to have a grasp of the answer. The only things usable for writing articles are episodes and movies. If it hasnt been made into a TV or theater production by the Paramount Pictures studio itself, it is not considered canon. (Memory Alpha:Canon policy) -- and therefore, none of the books are relevant to our articles (except of course for the article about that book). This means, for example, you can create an article about the publiction data of The Final Reflection, but neither Paramount nor this database considers it valid enough to list information from it in Klingons or D5 class -- because it is "non-canon". -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:39, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC) Ferengi Philosophy This page was deleted recently (though it still has some links to it) and I was thinking of re-adding it but wanted to post here first since it was deleted once already. I've been re-watching a lot of Ferengi episodes lately and while the last article was a one-sentence summary (and I was one of the ones who voted to delete), I do feel there is enough to expand the article and make it worth having its own page. There's enough material on Ferengi ethics, business practices, and social philosophy that doesn't easily fit into any other page but currently lacks reference in most Ferengi areas. Like I said, a head's up more than anything but since it was deleted once I thought I should mention it. Logan 5 20:59, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) :A compromise: Create Ferengi philosophy as a redirect to Ferengi and start a section Ferengi philosophy there. We can always move the content if it is enough to deserve its own article. -- Cid Highwind 21:10, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) :I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Highwind. The Ferengi article covers religious beliefs, but is a bit light on temporal beliefs and practices. A philosophy section should be erected at once! --Werideatdusk 08:18, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) :I agress make it a re-direct and reate the section in the Ferrengi article atleast for now--Kahless 18:44, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) Links to Alpha or Beta Quadrant article There are many location articles which state a location in either AQ or BQ as definite (see "What links here" for AQ and BQ) although this was never mentioned in canon. Often, this is just personal speculation. I suggest to check all these articles - if nothing definite about the location was said, we could instead link to an article (called Local space, for example) that basically states that the location is "somewhere in the neighborhood" and links to both Alpha Quadrant and Beta Quadrant. -- Cid Highwind 14:24, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC) References I'd like to point out that Logan 5 has been moving references from articles into lists at the the bottom of the page (example Ferengi), while Gvsualan has been running about doing the opposite and removing reference lists (example Breen). Is one of these users in violation or is there no standard? As a regular user of MA I find I am sometimes wondering where info comes from and would therefore like to see the in-article info kept, at the same time I am also sometimes wondering which episodes a certain species has been referenced in and would therefore like to see the lists kept. Would it be difficult to simply leave both types of citing in place? Jaf 13:47, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf :Linking from within an article is important to see where a specific bit of information came from - we're losing that information if we are just using lists at the bottom. I agree with Gvsualan here, and think that this is a part of some policy somewhere (at least we discussed this already). Double references could be a solution, although I don't know if they are necessary in all cases - let's discuss this further. -- Cid Highwind 13:53, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) Speculation vs. Analysis I was reading Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not and #2 on the part about MA articles (personal speculation) made me wonder about an article I wrote. I added a subsection to Paradise called Analysis and I might have pushed the envelope of an encyclopedia vs. a critical review... I'm not sure. There probably isn't an issue with that particular article, but I want to clarify for the future, which is why I posted here instead of its talk page. --Schrei 05:50, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC) : In my opinion, it's the wrong side of the line, I'm afraid. It definitely comes through as a review of the episode rather than part of a description of it - very much a critical piece, especially the discussions on symbolism and name origins. I won't remove the section just yet, to see what other opinions are, but I don't believe it is suitable for inclusion here. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:29, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC) : I see nothing wrong with analysis as long as it is marked as such. The same goes for speculation, as long as it is clearly. I shall give some examples using the Vorta: ' Analysis ' '' Analysis of the episode in which the Vorta appear leads to the conclusion that almost all Vorta are probably clones. '' ' Speculation ' '' Since Vorta have no need to reproduce sexually, they might be sterile. '' The important thing is that the articles must clearly distinguish analysis and speculation from canon, and the speculation and analysis must follow from canon. The analysis of Schrei definitely adds positively to Paradise. Imagine how much The Measure of a Man would benefit from analysis of the philosophical questions it raises. — — Ŭalabio‽ 00:28, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC) After reading Walabio's post, I re-read my analysis portion and I'm still ambilvalent about its encyclopedianess, if nothing else then for the length/depth. Maybe strike the second paragraph (is Depending on one's point of view, Alixus's name can be interpreted as the embodiment of her self-image as an "elixir" for the colonists' dependency on technology inherently POV?) and keep the first. If you deem the entire section inappropriate, you should add a 6th item to the list of what MA articles aren't. --Schrei 01:46, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC) I think Tribunal probably gives a good example of a compromise between critique and book report, dunno what other people think though. Other articles' background info looks limited to obvious stuff like continuity errors and "this character didn't appear in the episode." --Schrei 01:50, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC) :I've never seen the episode in question, and reading the brief analysis does not make me form an opinion one way or the other about the quality of the episode, so I don't think we have to worry about the section coming off as a type of review with the intent of expressing a positive or negative opinion. That said, the tone still comes off different from that of a typical MA article. Perhaps someone can rewrite it to save some of the symbolism speculation but remove the critical tone? Bullet points may help. Much of what is there is no different than some of the notes which can be found in many of the TOS episode background info. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 17:53, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC) Photographic Mistake - USS Yeager I don't pretend to be a Star Trek guru so I thought I'd get some confirmation first. I typed in 'USS Yeager' and when that page came up there was a screencap on it from a DS9 episode supposedly showing the Yeager-class near Deep Space Nine. The Yeager-class is essentially an Intrepid-class saucer (Voyager) 'bolted' onto a Marquis raider's hull which is of a greater scale. But the photograph on this page looks an awful lot like an Akira-class starship (note the nacelles and the 'pod'). I know for sure that it's not a Yeager-class starship and I was wondering if anyone else noticed this. Other than that, no complaints. Great site guys (and girls, presumably). :There is a discussion at Image talk:USS Yeager DS9.jpg on this very subject. --Alan del Beccio 08:32, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC) Table Design In creating The X-Files Wiki, I was wondering if I could use or adapt Memory Alpha's design for the "browser" class table, so that episodes can link to the next and previous ones (like here on Memory Alpha). However, I'm not very adept at code, so could someone paste the necessary programming for a "browser" class table here, please? --Defiant | ''Talk'' 21:40, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC) Featured Article Accessibility moved to Memory Alpha talk:Featured Articles#Featured Article Accessibility -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 02:54, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC) IE glitching I worked on the Henry Starling article for quite a while, and have even [[Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles#Henry_Starling|nominated it for FA status]]. However, on my talk page Tough Little Ship noted that there was a problem in the page. I'll copy that conversation here: : Hi. In the Starling article, I moved a couple of the images so that there wouldn't be so many gaps. Its better now, but theres a big gap between the Nixon info and the rest. Tough Little Ship 22:34, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC) :: That ''is strange. I couldn't see it at all, and since I couldn't figure out what you were seeing, I brought up the page in Internet Explorer and could see the glitch. That's really odd, as I don't know what would be causing that, the page parses properly in both Firefox and Safari. I'll drop a line in 10F and see if anybody has any ideas. Thanks! — THOR 23:06, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)'' This is the article as it appears properly in Firefox (shown) as well as Safari This is the article as it appears in Internet Explorer from my work computer (my apologies for image quality: mspaint) Does anybody have any ideas as to what the problem could be, and better yet, how to fix it? — THOR 23:06, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC) : If you place the images together like this, at the top of the page,: :: :: :: : you get an IE page that looks similar to your Mozilla page. I'm not sure how it works on Mozilla or Firefox, but it looks alright on my Internet Explorer. The only downside would be that the images wouldn't be connected to the section of text it's about, but the article is small enough, that it won't make a difference.--Tim Thomason 00:10, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Yep, that's a well known problem, appeared also in an old version of "Broken Bow", see Talk. One way to solve it is to stack all image links at the top of the article - but this causes problems with Opera, because if there are headings and subheadings the "edit" buttons on the right end of them are pushed down to the bottom of the page (don't ask me why, I don't get this). That's not the case here, but if, you have to arrange it like the "table-gallery" on Dixon Hill (holonovel) (Intrepid class is another example I've found right away). Maybe an update of the wiki software might fix all this some day. --Memory 00:20, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC) : Thanks everybody! It hadn't occurred to me that since all the images were top-right aligned anyway that I could just simply list them in order at the beginning of the article. I wish we could drop them down a line w/o futzing everything up, but all's well in the end I suppose. Again, thanks a lot youse guys! — THOR 01:25, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC) Template talk:ArticleOfTheWeek is messed up Template talk:ArticleOfTheWeek seems to have no recent nominations. All of them are very old. Where are the new ones? Have they moved? Has the system changed? What is the Policy for voting or nominating for AOTW? None of these questions are answered on MA anywhere which I can find. Tobyk777 03:39, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC) * As far as I know of, voting hasn't been necessary for some time as no one's suggested any, so I've just been changing them every week. I wouldn't call it messed up, just neglected. Template talk:ArticleOfTheWeek#Suggestions#August 18 2005, I just changed it yesterday. If my contrib.'s are in the wrong format I apologize, as I just followed what the previous person was doing. - AJHalliwell 03:48, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** AJHalliwell is correct, I don't ever recall enough interest in the AOTW to require voting... for a while, they were so neglected we were actually doing articles of the month(s) since no one took the initiative to change them every week! If you want a specific article to be featured, simply reserve it under the appropriate week (if it hasn't been taken and if the article has not been AOTW already) and I'm sure there won't be much of a problem. I suppose we should put something under the blank Policy section, though. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 04:53, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC) Audio and Video Clips on MA On memory alpha, almost all of our Data is in the form of articles or pictures. I say almost because I found an audio clip on the page: Battle of Sector 001 If you click on the quote (Of what the Borg say) it should play. (Although it did not work on my computer) I was wondering what this was about. Can anyone put audio and video on MA? Is it fobbidden? Does it take up too much space or not work? I think that audio and video would make huge additions to our database, and make MA more visualy pleasing. Tobyk777 18:55, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC) *:There is a notice on the upload page that states the reasons (mainly bandwidth and server space) video is not permitted. I wonder about the audio thing, because the copyright vs fair use thing is more jaded with the way we have the main themes to several shows stored on our server. But I think the reason there aren't more audio clips is that 1) it just doesn't occur to most people and 2) it's a lot easier to hit the screencap button in WinDVD or Windows Movie Maker or whatever program than to extract the audio, find the part in question, crop it, choose what format/bitrate to save it, and spend the time uploading (if you're on dial-up). ;) You're right in a way - audio and video would make huge additions, at least to the amount of server space we us. --Schrei 19:49, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** I don't think that putting Audio and Video would be a copyright violation just becuase someone could alter the recording. Also if they arnt premiited becuase of server reasons, than why was the one clip I mentioned premitted on MA, and on A featured article for that matter. Tobyk777 01:06, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC) *** I didn't mean any clip is a copyvio - I was referring to the theme songs. People in the USA can legally have a 30 second clip of a song (not sure about video) and distribute/store them however they want, since hypothetically this is not causing any loss of profit to the copyright owner. That's why places like iTunes, Walmart, and other digital music places have them. On the other hand, if you have the whole thing, it becomes a Napster-type situation. I don't think a fan site is in much danger though. Anyway, the clip you mentioned is permitted because it's audio, whereas video is prohibited because it consumes a lot more space. --Schrei 23:23, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC) ****Well, if Audio clips are premitted how do you put them onto MA? Tobyk777 23:46, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC) Seems audio clips have to be accessed with the Image tag, they're uploaded like any other file though. I added a couple of quote sound files to Tribunal (maybe woulda been a good idea to do it on a non-FA article), but it's weird - the upload page claims mp3s and oggs are both allowed, yet when I tried to upload an mp3, it said that extension isn't allowed. --Schrei 07:33, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC) Line diagrams/technical drawings Do any of the articles on the site have technical drawings of the objects they describe? I have looked at several starship articles, but they only have photos. It would probably be a nice addition to have 3-way projection drawings for important ships. Presumably, all previously published plans would constitute copyright violations on the site? Would that include model kit instruction sheets? --Nineworlds 00:49, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC) :I probably would. We include only book jackets and cover images from licensed products like novels -- so if it wasn't included, so i assume the same holds for collectibles -- we are probably prevented by copyright law from reproducing images of their documentation, like complete plans and decals (as opposed to simply using the images to display their packaging and the collectible itself). :If archivists takes it upon themselves to create their own technical reference, and upload it here (by default granting this community the right to display or edit the image), then it could be included. :The images would have to be accurate however, as Memory Alpha:Policy requires of all information in the database -- in the past, I've removed or altered images i've drawn (in flags and banners and Starfleet ranks, if you must know) to comply with reminders from other archivists of details which might not be true to the original canon episodes and films -- this is another reason we avoid using pages from licensed (or fan-based) sources, like comics or Star Trek reference works -- many of them aren't true to the actual show or movie, which is our boundary of what we are supposed to be contributing. :One exception that has come up is graphic art used for episodes -- for example, line drawings of the Ptolemy class were projected onto a monitor in Star Trek II, so the original artwork is visible in a Star Trek production -- and can be reproduced on Memory-Alpha -- classified as fair use, just as screencaps are -- but this is a rarer case. Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:30, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::That brings up an interesting point--since the Doug Drexler-produced encyclopedia drawings have shown up as background graphics in DS9 and VOY episodes, does that make the original artwork fair game? -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 01:52, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC) :::As long as it was shown onscreen, i'd say this probably qualifies -- i think this is exciting, and am ready to start helping to catalogue which artworks are appropriate for inclusion (as well as establish others that are not -- however we should try to stress maintaining the style it was viewed in (just as i changed the colors of the Ptolemy image to match the Star Trek II appearance rather than the black and white FJ SFTM version -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:39, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC) Troublemaker Can someone teach Ottens some manners, his mother obviously didnt do a good job of it. Captainmorgan 10:23, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :User has been reported at the Vandalism in progress page for vandalism on Template:ArticleOfTheWeek, Captain Morgan and probably User talk:Shran. User then reverted by edit of the Vandalism in progress page, and left insulting messages on both my user page and here. Suggest issue to be resolved by user's talkpage. Ottens 10:27, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) Memory Alpha:Featured Articles does not include the whole list. This page was created a few days ago to catagorize the FAs. But I noticed that not every featured article is on the list. Are users allowed to complete things like this? If not, I belive it is a vital page and someone should. I did not post it on the article's talk page because that conversation is about the page before the catagorization started. Tobyk777 18:08, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :It's a wiki. Just do it. ;-) --Porthos 18:38, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::Yeah, whenever people ask why stuff like this isn't complete I usually point them to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit#Why_aren't_these_pages_copy-edited? and say go for it. :) --Schrei 01:59, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Actor vs. Actress IP user 222.122.4.205. (See: User talk:222.122.4.205) has been neutering articles, changing "Actress" to Actor, specifically on female pages. Does our policy say anything about gender-neutral words having to be used? Cause it seems to me that Actress pages should be called actresses, etc. - AJHalliwell 19:28, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :You used the argument that actress has been used for a long time on the talk page, but so was poetess, and we don't called Maya Angelou a poetess. Words where the primary word is masculine and there is a female variant are inherently mysogenistic, and as such, they should be changed. I don't expect the people here to agree with me since you're 90% male, but yeah, I'm right. :-P ::I suppose it is the right way to go. For example, Wikipedia's categories now feature "Category:Star Trek actors" for male and female stars. Tough Little Ship 19:39, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :::But that's a category. As proven above, "Actor" is non-gender specific, so it's good to use as a cat. like we use performer. But this isn't like cat's where it has to be the same for male and female to be listed, this is just as mentioned in an article. :Ensign Brooks was played by actress Tina Fey. So I don't think this is the same thing. I still support the use of actor and actress. Also, for someone who doesn't want to be gender-derogative, "'' I don't expect the people here to agree with me since you're 90% male,''" could be taken offensivly... - AJHalliwell 23:05, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :The IP user's attempts are noble, in that the term "actor" should be used to encompass both male and female performers rather than seperating them. However, I personally believe the term "actress" should continue to be used on M/A so as to clearly distinguish between a male actor and a female actor. Also, the term actress, unlike poetess, is not a dead term: female performers have almost always refered to themselves as "actresses". Also, major film sites such as the IMDb still distinguish between actors and actresses, as do major film ceremonies such as the Oscars and Emmys. For these reasons, I believe we should stick with the differential terms "actor" and "actress." --From Andoria with Love 23:10, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::Hey! What's with linking my name to Tina Fey? :-P --From Andoria with Love 23:12, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::If you say the attempts are noble, perhaps we should carry on in Gene Roddenberry's tradition of a better vision of the future by using the "ideal" version of the term instead of than "Well, everyone else says abc, so I don't want to look weird by saying xyz." Also, don't revert edits until someone makes a consensus here. But I don't think "played by actor/actress" is necessary at all, considering I think it's OBVIOUS the person is an actor/actres/performer when you state they played someone. 222.122.4.205 * I suggest to avoid an edit war (as seems to be going on the recent pages) as of the timestamp of this post, please DO NOT edit anymore pages concerning this until it's settled. If any pages are neutered or de-neutered (what an incredibly odd sentence...) revert them to the timestamp on AJHalliwell 23:19, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC). :Actually, the IP user does have a point. Perhaps, instead of saying actor or actress, the Morn bot can replace those words with "performer"? --From Andoria with Love 23:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::That is good suggestion but would it be foiled by fact that people still say actor? We would have to be always changing it back. PCPatrol 23:46, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :::Yes, it may cause a bit of a problem. For one thing, there are terms used frequently in the articles -- such as "veteran actor" or "veteran actress" or "character actor", etc. I'm not sure we can say "veteran performer" or "character performer", as those terms just don't sound right, at least in my opinion. Also, the terms "actor" and "actress" are more commonly used. I dunno... I think we're just gonna have to let the topic rest for now until we can get another admin's opinion. --From Andoria with Love 00:36, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Personally, I see no reason for changing them from actor to actress. When writing articles, you can call the females actor, actress, performer, or whatever. I would rather stick with actress when it applies; no need to change it. -Platypus Man 00:46, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) *I personally feel neutering actor/actress references is needlessly complicated, and even a bit silly. But then, I also feel some people are too sensitive and go overboard with some so-called "PC" issues. I therefore think we should just leave "actor"/"actress" the way they were originally, since it's widely accepted and isn't confusing to anyone (especially non-native English-speakers here). :I'm female, btw. As if the name didn't tip you off. ;-) -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 01:06, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) * To echo most of the above points, there doesn't seem to be any negative connotation with "actress" any more than there is a negative connotation with the word "female" or "woman," so I don't see how political correctness even plays a role in this discussion. To me, changing everything from actress to actor is akin to changing every instance of "man" or "woman" to "person"--much too broad and general. "Performer," too, seems much too generic and only used in categories to simplify things as an individual can appear in an episode in a capacity other than as an actor/actress. Furthermore, we do need to establish context by saying "Gates McFadden is an actress" due to the fact that the actor and production information is meshed with the main content and is typically not disambiguated with (performer) or something else in the title. Finally, it is suggested above that changing "actor" to "performer" would not work because people would always be changing to "actor" or "actress"--the fact that this would happen should say that those terms are widely accepted and present no problem to those browsing the site. This is a community, and while the opinions of the individual are often important, I don't think we should be making policy based on the opinions of a few. To me this whole issue seems a bit too much like hair-splitting and something which shouldn't cause offense. I don't think "actor" or "performer" should necessarily become the new standard leading to policy, however editors should feel free to use whatever appropriate term when creating or editing an article. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 01:43, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) This probably doesn't help, but am I the only person who sees the whole issue as somewhere between mildly pointless to utterly ridiculous? :P --Schrei 01:55, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) :You're right, Schrei... that didn't help. :þ But, yeah, having read all the points here, I do have to agree with A.J. and SmokeDetector; changing the terms "actress" to "actor" would go against some of the descripting and contextual policies already established on M/A. --From Andoria with Love 02:54, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) *Frankly, yes, this is pointless, that is why everything is back the way it was. Everything was fine the way it was before this all started, and there were no issues with being gender specific what so ever. It should be noted, too, that some names of actors and actresses are so gender neutral that clarifying that they are male or female is almost necessary, especially if there is no image clarify what gender the performer/character is. Take for example Synon, the performers name, Blake Lindsley, almost needs to be clarified, as I would have never suspected that Blake was a female, nor would the reader. Anyway, it seems quite clear that the consensus is to remain gender specific, and as well, going through and changing pages wastes a lot of time, space in the system, and basically just clogs up the recent changes page to the point of being annoying. Let's just let things be left be, and let bygones be bygones. --Alan del Beccio 04:08, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Unnamed Humans I'm dealing with a sort of minor dilemma. Maybe you can help me. I've got screen caps of two of the unnamed "37's" from the episode of the same name. One is an Indian woman, while the other is an older, slightly dissheveled-looking man (most likely a laborer of some sort from either North America or Europe). Trouble is, I can't decide to stick them in with the list of humans from the 20th century (where they're from) or in with the list of humans from the 24th century (where we technically find them). What do you think?--T smitts 01:59, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) *I think either would be fine... personally, I'd go with 20th century humans as that's where I'd be more likely to look for these individuals, then create small stub headers for them under 24th century humans (under "The 37's," or something) and redirect to the info on the 20th century page. Vice versa would apply if you decide to put them on the 24th century page. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 02:04, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) *I'd say the humans from the 20th century list, as that's when they're from. Would you consider Amelia Earhart to be from the 20th or the 24th century? The 20th. Just because they're historically unimportant doesn't mean they weren't still from that time. -Platypus Man 02:05, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)